> > There is no space to argue over whether a comment was transphobic – if it hurt a trans person then it is transphobic and it is unacceptable.
Ah, postmodernism! Where the words are made up, and intent doesn't matter!
Snarky one-liners on flamewar topics are flamebait, which the site guidelines ask you not to post: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(Edit: I made a mistake in the following bit because I missed your initial ">". Sorry! Quoting the OP is obviously legit.)
Hauling the most provocative thing you can find on someone's personal blog into a thread on a flamewar-prone topic is guaranteed to make things worse. We're trying to avoid the online shaming/callout culture here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...
But on a serious note, this is the core of bullshit that powers progressive identity politics, and progressive cancel culture.
I understand RMS' comments on "them/they" as a pedantic, semantic, technically correct grammar nazi argument. But then, the authors of the demand letter to cancel RMS argue, because a trans person took offense with his statement, RMS is a transphobe.
And this kind of smearing is only possible if you subscribe to the postmodern notion that intent doesn't matter, and that "x-phobe" simply means that you offended a person of group x, regardless of your intent.
It's a quote from the article that's key in presenting the principles of their open letter. If the poster had gone to Molly's website and found it for themselves, and posted it here I'd certainly contest it's flamebait.
This seems different, because we're accepting that this article has a place here, I don't see how you can not quote key segments of the article.
The rest I definitely agree with.
Honestly, it's not hard to call people what they want to be called.
You might feel the line between innocent mistake and maliciousness has not been crossed. Other people do disagree.
Names, however, are not. We've learned names are not connected to any physical trait, and thus we process and store them differently.
Expecting the entirety of humanity to simply "unlearn" language is a huge stretch - especially for those with gendered languages (English is not a gendered language).
Further, the fact that pronouns "hurt" trans people is largely subjective - there is a very large portion of the trans community that would disagree with that assertion.
Words are words. Perhaps we should stop placing as much weight in them, fullstop.
Well ... no. People are called Baker because some ancestor was a baker. Then over time the link from the name to the occupation got lost.
Just as we might have "derive[d] pronouns from that" but are currently on the same way as with "Baker" - removing the word from it's physical beginnings.
Then in the end words are a tool and not a thing by their own - as evidenced that you can hardly read a 500 year old text - including your pronouns, that were different back then.
If it helps - at least one party - communication to use different/new pronouns, this is where language will go.
When you promote putting people on lists, bear in mind that some of us are happy to reciprocate. I certainly wouldn't want to employ someone who thinks "if it offends a trans person, then it is transphobic" is a reasonable maxim.
I guess using gender neutral pronouns exclusively for transgender people can be considered transphobic but this is not something that stallman advocates for. In fact his statements regarding gender neutral pronouns do not mention transgender people at all, it seems that he advocates for the gender neutral pronouns to be used for _everyone_ (which should in the long run be advantageous to transgender people).
Regardless though, he himself uses the pronouns that people ask him to use for them. So he is basically being accused for being a transphobe for... saying that having a single gender neutral pronoun to replace all pronouns is better? Really? It saddness me that people decide to "cancel" him instead of engaging in a (public or private) dialog with him. There is a good chance that he hasn't even heard their arguments.
Ironically, that means that if a trans person finds your comment, or the blog author's post, offensive in some way then now you or they are transphobic and there's nothing you can say or do to dispute that. Clearly, that is unacceptable.
But intent matters. It has to matter. I believe RMS' intent with his "they/them is plural" statement is to be a grammar nazi, and not that he wants to put down trans people. His argument is tactless, pedantic, and he's wrong because language changes and grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive, but he's not transphobic. He's wrong, but not because some trans person took offense with what he wrote.
How does one express what gender neutral pronoun they want to be called without expressing their preferred gendered pronoun?
That's true and RMS will gladly call you using any pronouns you choose: https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html#rms-is-not-transphobic
Here it is - https://m.imgur.com/gallery/KdeMOdA
Another version has a timeline chart below it showing some interesting facts but I can't find that one right now.
Postmodernism is truly nefarious.
Anyway, you have to really stretch it beyond reason to see transphobia behind anything RMS has said, written, or done.
As for the impact of his works and actions, everyone has access to a full software stack to explore, learn from, and work on, without the need to be inside some university or company, i.e. to have the money or to pass admission processes that might be putting certain groups at a disadvantage, or outright excluding them. This was also his intent all along and he sacrificed a lot for it.
Oh, you can get pretty close. What you do is you look at their attitudes towards the marginalized individuals, to marginalized communities, their opinions as a whole, their advocacy, their friendship groups, etc.
If, on balance, they appear to support and promote people of colour or transgender people (as much as they do any other people group) - then this person is probably not racist or transphobic.
However, that's haaarrrd. And doing that groundwork doesn't win you clicks as a media outlet. Whipping up a mob does win you clicks however. And advertising revenue.
And then many people - who have only read those articles - shout about it, like mobs tend to do, it seems like it has universal approval, and people assume it's probably true.
If you don't define words like "racist" and "transphobic" to be solely about intent, those words become meaningless.
Is the purpose of the electric car to make CO2? Of course not. Yet for a long time (not sure whether this has changed yet) more CO2 was wasted in their production and transport than they could ever hope to save in over 10 years of operation.
Is your purpose to make blaisé, ill-thought-out over-generalisations on the internet? Of course not. I imagine you lead a full and fulfilling life offline, spoiling orphaned kittens rotten and brokering peace treaties in your spare time.
Just because a person (or, if you prefer, a system) produces an unintended side effect - whether by accident, ignorance or bad publicity - it does not make that their purpose, or even reflective of the kindness in their core being.
And sometimes, these things can be fixed with education. Sometimes these things can be fixed with holistic reporting and good PR. Sometimes, other people need to learn to do their own research to understand and accept the context in which things are said.
But alas, the internet will never learn these things. Because the purpose of a system is what it does - and what the internet does really well is spread hate and division.